Guest guest Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 [it's interesting that Dr. Mercola (see below) chose to use a highly controversial subject to highlight a way that pharmacists can refuse to give out certain drugs that harm. While this issue reported in USA today is one based on religous issues, at its heart is that the pharmacists involve are refusing to dispense a drug that they see causes harm. What we don't see is pharmacists refusing to give out much more harmful drugs on the basis that they cause harm. That's because they aren't the physician and in general don't know the whole story. Where pharmacists should really become involved is when they see someone being given many many medications, each one to counteract side effects of other ones. Ironically, the people who work in the medical field, such as nurses, who wind up with a chronic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, are the ones who often end up with a dozen different medications because they have knowledge of the drugs and ask their doctors to prescribe the drugs. David ] How To Defeat the Drug Monopoly Tuesday, Nov 09, 2004 04:47 AM http://www.mercola.com/blog/2004/nov/9/how_to_defeat_the_drug_monopoly This morning's USA Today has the answer. Through the pharmacists. The issue is receiving press as some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills. While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion. Whatever your stand on their decision many states are upholding it, as states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. Can you imagine what would happen if we were able to convince the majority of pharmacists that the conventional drug based paradigm is fatally flawed and that over 95% of the drugs used in this country are not safe and should not be used? Some drugs should be banned altogether. Interferons that cost over $1000 a month are a classic example. They are used for severe automimmune diseases, like MS, rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's and do absolutely nothing to address the cause of the problem, can cause terrible side effects and enrich the drug companies. Statin drugs are another classic example. Far less than 1% of them are ever appropriate as nearly all elevated cholesterol problems can be relatively easily controlled with simple lifestyle modifications. The same is drug for proton pump inhibitors like Nexium most hypertension drugs and the list goes on and on and on. Yesterday I hired a new physician, Dr. Betty Go, to work in our center. She has been trained in natural medicine for about ten years but for some personal circumstances, she had decided to practice in Seattle in a traditional setting. Initially she thought she could help those in that setting understand the need for treatments that address the cause and help facilitate the paradigm shift. But once she got there she realized that there was no way she could continue to write prescriptions for patients who just did not get it. That was my blessing as we will now have an outstanding physician to help us address the serious backlog we have for new patients that require help to recover their help in our center. I really think that educating pharmacists about the truth regarding health and how it is achieved could go a long way toward defeating the conventional drug based paradigm. USA Today November 9, 2004 Druggists refuse to give out pill By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control. " I was shocked, " says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. " Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician. " Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year. The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill. In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views. Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions. " We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also, " says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. " The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing, " she said. Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the " morning-after " pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion. " I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life, " says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township. Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim. In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay. She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely. Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral. " The reality is every one of those instances is one too many, " Winckler says. " Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing. " In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues. Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the " morning-after " pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide. " The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that, " he says. In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide. " It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods, " says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. " They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2004 Report Share Posted November 10, 2004 I guess then, MAYBE we can refuse to take certain meds on account of OUR religious convictions! ? ....NG - " David Elfstrom " <listbox Tuesday, November 09, 2004 12:51 PM How To Defeat the Drug Monopoly > > > [it's interesting that Dr. Mercola (see below) chose to use a highly > controversial subject to highlight a way that pharmacists can refuse to > give out certain drugs that harm. While this issue reported in USA today > is one based on religous issues, at its heart is that the pharmacists > involve are refusing to dispense a drug that they see causes harm. What > we don't see is pharmacists refusing to give out much more harmful drugs > on the basis that they cause harm. That's because they aren't the > physician and in general don't know the whole story. > > Where pharmacists should really become involved is when they see someone > being given many many medications, each one to counteract side effects > of other ones. > > Ironically, the people who work in the medical field, such as nurses, > who wind up with a chronic disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, are the > ones who often end up with a dozen different medications because they > have knowledge of the drugs and ask their doctors to prescribe the drugs. > > David ] > > How To Defeat the Drug Monopoly > Tuesday, Nov 09, 2004 04:47 AM > http://www.mercola.com/blog/2004/nov/9/how_to_defeat_the_drug_monopoly > > This morning's USA Today has the answer. Through the pharmacists. The > issue is receiving press as some pharmacists are refusing to dispense > birth control pills. While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for > opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization > and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in > particular, as capable of causing an abortion. Whatever your stand on > their decision many states are upholding it, as states from Rhode Island > to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. > > Can you imagine what would happen if we were able to convince the > majority of pharmacists that the conventional drug based paradigm is > fatally flawed and that over 95% of the drugs used in this country are > not safe and should not be used? Some drugs should be banned altogether. > Interferons that cost over $1000 a month are a classic example. They are > used for severe automimmune diseases, like MS, rheumatoid arthritis and > Crohn's and do absolutely nothing to address the cause of the problem, > can cause terrible side effects and enrich the drug companies. > > Statin drugs are another classic example. Far less than 1% of them are > ever appropriate as nearly all elevated cholesterol problems can be > relatively easily controlled with simple lifestyle modifications. The > same is drug for proton pump inhibitors like Nexium most hypertension > drugs and the list goes on and on and on. > > Yesterday I hired a new physician, Dr. Betty Go, to work in our center. > She has been trained in natural medicine for about ten years but for > some personal circumstances, she had decided to practice in Seattle in a > traditional setting. Initially she thought she could help those in that > setting understand the need for treatments that address the cause and > help facilitate the paradigm shift. But once she got there she realized > that there was no way she could continue to write prescriptions for > patients who just did not get it. That was my blessing as we will now > have an outstanding physician to help us address the serious backlog we > have for new patients that require help to recover their help in our center. > > I really think that educating pharmacists about the truth regarding > health and how it is achieved could go a long way toward defeating the > conventional drug based paradigm. > > USA Today November 9, 2004 > Druggists refuse to give out pill > By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm > > For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a > Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one > day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription > because she did not believe in birth control. > > " I was shocked, " says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her > prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. > " Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill > the prescription that was ordered by my physician. " > > Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill > prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to > Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions. > > Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July > that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not > participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota > and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to > refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills > this year. > > The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy > that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on > moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still > get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the > prescription to another druggist to fill. > > In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the > state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for > birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. > He would not refill it because of his religious views. > > Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such > actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum. > > The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that > would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if > they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for > abortions. > > " We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the > tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control > that they're after also, " says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned > Parenthood Federation of America. > > " The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number > of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that > prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing, " > she said. > > Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs > as the " morning-after " pill, which is emergency contraception that can > prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. > > While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth > control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal > contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of > causing an abortion. > > " I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human > life, " says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for > Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill > a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati > suburb of Delhi Township. > > Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas > Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In > February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton > wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim. > > In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to > refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another > pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her > prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she > missed a pill because of the delay. > > She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 > in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's > Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen > didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in > October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's > pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely. > > Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American > Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill > a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a > pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral. > > " The reality is every one of those instances is one too many, " Winckler > says. " Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing. " > > In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted > refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of > providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam > Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive > issues. > > Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want > the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, > such as the " morning-after " pill, embryonic stem-cell research and > assisted suicide. > > " The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, > some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of > that, " he says. > > In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that > would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe > could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide. > > " It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose > between their consciences and their livelihoods, " says Matt Sande of > Pro-Life Wisconsin. " They should not be compelled to become parties to > abortion. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.